Mims, Pamela J.; Browder, Diane M.; Baker, Joshua N.; Lee, Angel; Spooner, Fred (2009). Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, v44 n3 p409-420. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ853162
Reviewed: December 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for System of Least Prompts.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see System of Least Prompts Intervention Report (236 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in two schools in a large urban school district in southeastern United States. Student 1 received the intervention in a separate room for individualized literacy instruction. Student 2 received the intervention in her school’s special education room.
This study included two students who were identified by their school district as having a severe or profound intellectual disability, with IQs below 55 and development levels below one year. Student 1 was a 6-year-old boy who had the following diagnoses: developmental delay, multi-handicap, cortical visual impairment, cerebral palsy, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. He used a wheelchair and received occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, and vision services. Student 2 was a 9-year-old girl who had the following diagnoses: developmental delay, multi-handicap, severe visual impairment in each eye, cerebral palsy, microcephaly, and seizures. She used a wheelchair and received occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, and vision services.
Two separate multiple probe design experiments (one for each student) were used to measure the effect of SLP on listening comprehension across three adapted books (Dirty Bertie; Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day; Miss You Every Day). Prior to the study, the books were shortened, target objects were inserted into the books, story lines were repeated, and comprehension questions were included throughout the stories. The interventionist for the study was a doctoral student in special education who had previously served as a special education teacher. The interventionist read each book aloud and asked students to answer comprehension questions by touching correct target objects. The interventionist placed two objects in front of the child: one relevant to the question and one from another book. In the SLP sessions, the interventionist waited 5 seconds for the student to select the correct object; if the student did not select the object in that timeframe, the interventionist prompted the student to answer by placing the students’ hand on the page of the book with the object in the text. If the student answered after the first level prompt, the interventionist provided praise; if the student did not answer, the interventionist would give a second level prompt, which involved placing the students’ hand directly on the correct object on the page of the book. A third level prompt, in which the interventionist would place the child’s hand first on the object in the book and then on the correct object in front of them, would follow, if necessary.
During the baseline phase, the interventionist read aloud the same adapted books to the students, asked the comprehension questions as they came up in each book, and placed the objects by the student’s hands on the table. The interventionist waited 5 seconds for the child to respond by touching the correct object on the table, but did not prompt the student.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube